Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by silverfox1961

  1. Oh dear. You have used Parcel2Go. Once it is declared lost or damaged, all you will get back is the price you paid for the shipping as nearly everything sent by courier isn't covered by their restricted items list such as items containing glass. Other courier companies are the same. They will take your money and any extras to cover loss/damage and when you make a claim, they refer back to their terms and refuse to pay out. All is not lost. Parcel2Go accepted your parcel and you paid for the extra insurance so if they try to fob you off, you sue them. If you read other threads on here, you will see what has happened in other cases.
  2. Ignore my last response. I was thinking of Premier Parking, not Premier Park. My bad. In the last few months, they have taken action on just three cases compared with the amount of tickets issued (almost 41k) so work out the chances of this actually going to court.
  3. While Gladstones do act for the parking companies, this letter is NOT a Letter Before Claim/Action. It is just another begging letter. Gladstones have a vested interest in IPC members in using them for claims as the directors of Gladstones an the IPC are one and the same. Cheap looking letters are Gladstones standard format. Ignore the reference to Beavis and Parking Eye as this case is nothing at all similar with that case.
  4. DX is so right on many subjects. 120k plus posts must mean he knows something. His short posts allow me to expand his points. It has never been confirmed 100% that this database actually exists but even if it did, it will have no effect on you. Even if you paid, your name would still be there. The problem with this database is that it is mainly 'Alleged Shoplifter' cases. Very few (if any) contain names of convicted shoplifters. An example case would be when someone has taken something by mistake and been branded a shoplifter and RLP (via Cireco-the data processing company) gave out the details, they would be in real trouble as it can only state 'alleged' No proof, no conviction. After all of that, they couldn't release that data to anyone without your express permission and you don't have to declare it either in job interviews or if you needed a visa. On some job application forms there is usually a part where they ask if you have been convicted of a crime. Your answer is no as you haven't been arrested, charged, taken to the criminal court and been found guilty. If you haven't read this before:- https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?448994-RLP-FAQ-s.-What-do-they-mean-Reviewed-September-2015&p=4762870&viewfull=1#post4762870 please do so. It answers many questions. Just be aware that RLP can't do anything to you-ever! If they send it to a debt collector to try it on, they have even less power than RLP. The only party that could take action is Lidl but they don't. It is not cost effective to do so.
  5. As well as agreeing with DX, you could do with spending time on contacting the DVLA to find out when Euro Car Parks applied for your details. The 'good' news is that ECP have taken no cases to court this year and only two last year. This is not saying they won't but it's unlikely which is why we need all the information requested
  6. One we'll have to differ on. You are correct on your statement on reasonable suspicion. Pace states reasonable suspicion but what IS reasonable suspicion. Setting an alarm off (IMO) does not cause reasonable suspicion. As for this We know the police rarely attend so again (IMO) this wouldn't stand. It's more likely that the police would tell the store that they won't be attending. In substance. PaCE does seem pretty vague on what reasonable suspicion is so a security guard would need a little bit more to affect an arrest Bit of a amble but I'm writing as I think it.
  7. Hi Just thank your lucky stars you don't live in the USA. I have seen some videos where there are store staff checking every customers receipt before allowing them to leave the store and if you don't, they won't let you leave and will call the police who will turn out and get heavy with you. If the security guard had tried to arrest you and detained you, he would soon be after a new job as to arrest anyone, reasonable suspicion isn't enough. They would need proof of theft and that was obviously not the case. I think that a civil claim for unlawful detention would follow on from his actions. Yes, they can ask to see your receipt but you are well within your rights to refuse. The store could ban you from entering again but they can do that to anyone anyway. It's private land. You are under no obligation to give your personal details to the security and if they tried to search you without permission. the faecal matter would hit the fan. If they tried to force you to go 'round the back' you are within your rights to refuse politely. If you felt fearful for your safety, you could have called the police. It would likely end with the security guard being cuffed, not you. Just because an alarm goes off does not mean anything. I have had library books set off the alarms but never a phone? I have also bought electrical goods where the tag has not been correctly de-activated.
  8. In my recent past, I have had a search letter addressed to the 'homeowner'. I did nothing to assist them at all and I recommend you do so too. One thing the letter is good for is if you tear it into strips wide enough to wipe with
  9. Hopefully you should know wgat to do with that piece of rubbish but if not. Ignore it. The only time to sit up and take notice is IF a letter before claim from a proper solicitor turns up.
  10. I think you should look again at the letters and look out for 'riders'. These are likely to say 'If', 'May', 'Might' None of what you have stated can happen until a court case has been won and if they are stating otherwise, they would be in trouble as that would be classed as harassment. It would help if you uploded the letters in pdf. format and once you have obscured your personal details and any reference numbers.
  11. There is a 'get out' for members of the ShopWatch scheme in that they are allowed to disseminate data to other scheme members. All members must be GDPR compliant and maintain a separate database and not supply the data to any other third party (except those with legal authority). have a look at the ICO website and exemptions http://tinyurl.com/yajl4aah In the section titled Crime and Taxation, this, in my opinion, covers your question
  12. 100% agree with DX. I suspect that this will go nowhere but always be alert to the possibility. As you so rightly say, a reasonable person would assume that parking companies have the publics interests at heart to stop unlawful parking and making more spaces available to others. I wish that was true. It is always about the money. Nothing more, nothing less.
  13. I agree. return to sender will just delay matters and the unopened letter may just contain something that you need to take action on. UKCPM do take people to court but from what we have gleaned over time, it's likely that if they do, there is enough evidence to defeat them On the PADI website, they list the amount of tickets and court claims however, they have an interest in this company so if you do get a court claim you can update them and us. http://tinyurl.com/yap9c82p
  14. I was thinking about this case over the weekend. You did not conceal the coat which should have made security think that it was a mistake. A genuine thief would hide the coat. It is very difficult to say what may happen if you contacted the store. He/She may accept it was a genuine mistake but equally may ignore your response. There is nothing you can do to stop the letters from RLP and then possible debt letters. Treating them as a a game is a better option. Have a look at the stickies on this forum to see what is lawful and what is not.
  15. Now, my opinion may differ to others but this is what I feel. The fact that this was NOT an ANPR capture and a red card was left on the vehicle which stated 'this is not a parking charge notice' then they are stuffed. It should have been that a windscreen notice of a parking charge had been incurred which is obviously not the case. As such the Notice to Keeper (NTK) should have been issued after a 28 day period had elapsed. They didn't do this. They have issued the charge on a faulty assumption that they are using ANPR technology where a NTK can be issued within 14 days. This must fail as no ANPR was used. It really needs us to bang our heads together to get a firm opinion but mine, at the moment is that the charge was issued wrongly
  16. Hi and welcome to CAG It is unusual for an IPC member to be using PoFA. By all means appeal to PP but expect to get rejected but that means you then having to go to the Independent Appeal Service (IAS) who will also reject your appeal for the simple reason that it's not in their members interests to go against them. The IPC, the IAS are run by the same people so how can an appeal ever be treated with an unbiased opinion. If you did appeal to PP, ensure that you never name the driver, You are under no obligation to do so. My personal opinion. Ignore as they have taken one case to court this year. I will have a look on google to see what is visible at the site in daylight.
  17. I have been contacted by the Sainsburys media team on twitter asking for the location of the store. Until told otherwise, I have said it was the superstore in Bolton. It would be better if the OP went on to twitter and tried to get some resolution while at the same time keeping this thread going. Until we get the answers to the link posted in post four of this thread, nothing much can happen.
  18. I have added a tweet to this thread and left Sainsburys a short message. Let's see if they do the right thing. We do need to know which sainsburys it is as well so we can look on Google and see what we can view.
  19. I cannot be certain but I wouldn't put it past them. I must state that BES used separate companies to do the cold calling but they were linked in some small way and this was a few years back. I don't believe the official report mentioned the phone recordings but many threads at the time stated that they disputed the recordings supplied. They do tend to supply micro businesses more than domestic and that is deliberate as they can tie businesses into longer contracts. This is the report so if they are not doing what they are supposed to be doing, it is well worth reminding them and possibly reporting them. https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/sites/default/files/docs/bes_penalty_notice_of_decision.pdf
  20. Hi and welcome to CAG. Security guards seem to think that any payment is a fine. It is not. What will happen is that you will get a lovely letter 'requiring' you pay a form of compensation for the store security time spent on your case. This is rubbish as store security are paid whether or not they apprehend anyone. If they were paid on results, they would never be able work and earn the minimum wage. Nobody but the police and the courts can issue a fine. What RLP rely on is peoples lack of knowledge in civil court matters. RLP would have to advise Primark to take action as RLP can not do it themselves. Primark do not do civil court as it is not cost effective. Civil Claims of this sort can only put the retai;er back into the position before the event occurred so if a coat cost £50, that is all they could claim BUT only if they didn't get it back. As they did get it back, there is no loss so what's the point of going to court. RLP state in their letters that each event costs £300-£500 to process. Rubbish of course but they put it in to try and convince you that their claim has some legitimacy. It doesn't! Put this behind you. Ignore RLP as they can do nothing to you-ever. Get on with your life.
  21. Hi I would err on the cautious side and instruct your bank not to allow BES to set up a direct debit. Keep a check on your account as well just in case your bank screws up. BES are not the easiest to deal with and in 2015 got investigated by OFGEM with this result http://tinyurl.com/y7oy4k9q In the past it is true thatsome people within the company doctored recordings to make it sound like you had agreed to be a customer. Whether this is still ongoing or not, we have no idea. If at any time they ring you, try and record the call and if you need to contact them, use snail mail rather than phone/email. Get a free proof of postage from the post office or choose the signed for delivery. Getting a signature for a delivered letter is a good idea
  22. I had my mobility component removed on my last PIP assessment so I applied via Suffolk County Council for limited mobiity. A right palaver. In days gone by, the BB people used to contact your GP to get the information required. No longer. Just this week I had to attend an assessment at their offices in Lowestoft which is a disadvantage to start with as parking is at a premium. The nearest car park was half a mile away. Too far for me thank you. The fact that I drove to the assessment will not go well for me. Had someone brought me, that would be different. I did manage to find one free space near the centre. All the assessment was a few questions and then the assessor walked with me whilst timing me to see how far I could walk without getting out of breath or in too much pain. I can see me failing this assessment because I lost the PIP mobility (this is subject to a complaint with I.C.E.) and having to prove yourself to someone who doesn't know you is very hard. As for only getting a BB for one year is weird. Do they expect you to get better or are they doing this instead of for three years to deny a disabled person from obtaining a Motability car??
  23. Hi As this is railway land and as mentioned above, this is covered by byelaw 14, Indigo will do as much as they can to get you to pay them as they know that if it goes to a Magistrates Court, they won't see a penny. It is for the landowner to get the court involved and they have six months in which to do so. As far as I am aware, there have been no cases taken at Magistrate level. (happy to be proved wrong) Another killer for Indigo is that there is no independent appeal service as the BPA, which funds the POPLA appeal service. POPLA only get involved with appeals for Parking Charge Notices and not Penalty Charge Notices. Even official Penalty parking tickets (issued by the council) have an appeals service. Expect a deluge of letters. Keep them all safe as I bet there will be some misleading information in them.
  24. I saw that the three had been released. They should never have been jailed in the first place. It is my opinion that the judge in that case should have recused himself as he had an interest in the industry that may have skewed his view. An investigation should be performed and the judge reprimanded if it shows that he was biased.
  25. Have you thought of going to the admin department and finding out who monitors FP. There will be someone at the hospital who has the responsibility for parking matters. Find them and see if they will contact FP and get them to cancel the ticket on your behalf. Sometimes works-sometimes not.
  • Create New...